3 ms·

See also (dated February 1, 2007): http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 I disagree that

See also (dated February 1, 2007): http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 http://www.aarongreenspan.com/essays/index.html?id=11 I disagree that violence is the best answer to problems that are themselves non-violent in nature, such as tax problems, and I'll leave it at that. Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax system?

invisible 17y ago
I do not think violence is the best answer to non-violent problems, but unfortunately history has proven that the general populous has trouble equating the importance of issues without violence. I believe the ideology comes from "if it's not important enough to fight for, it's not important." Although I do not appreciate your condescending tone (who are you to me besides a name anyway?) my name is Mark Caudill, if you'd prefer to use my name. I have done very little towards solving tax problems and I do not intend to put forth considerable effort. I am not a politician nor do I have the time to become one. It has been said that it's not a very rewarding career to those that wish they could improve the world. I also do not post articles as a journalist on the Huffington Post about how a mad man did something horrible and then go on to say that his message was pretty smart.
DenisM 17y ago
Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax system? invisible's point is that you would not cover the issue as extensively had it not been for the Stack's actions, therefore those actions were not entirely pointless as they created more awareness of the problem. Your reply amounts to an ad-hom. Kindly refrain.
- thinkcomp 17y ago
  I disagree. First of all, I never said that anything was pointless. Secondly, Mark criticized my arguments because I had merely "scuffed on the subject of the IRS" in his words. I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the subject. Especially when I've offered up my name and background, asking for an anonymous critic's name and background does not constitute an ad hominem attack, and may in fact raise important points in the context of a debate.
  - DenisM 17y ago
    I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the subject. Try addressing the substance of the argument instead of the person that brought it forward.

invisible 17y ago

I do not think violence is the best answer to non-violent problems, but unfortunately history has proven that the general populous has trouble equating the importance of issues without violence. I believe the ideology comes from "if it's not important enough to fight for, it's not important." Although I do not appreciate your condescending tone (who are you to me besides a name anyway?) my name is Mark Caudill, if you'd prefer to use my name. I have done very little towards solving tax problems and I do not intend to put forth considerable effort. I am not a politician nor do I have the time to become one. It has been said that it's not a very rewarding career to those that wish they could improve the world. I also do not post articles as a journalist on the Huffington Post about how a mad man did something horrible and then go on to say that his message was pretty smart.

DenisM 17y ago

Besides, who are you, and what have you done to help improve the nation's tax system? invisible's point is that you would not cover the issue as extensively had it not been for the Stack's actions, therefore those actions were not entirely pointless as they created more awareness of the problem. Your reply amounts to an ad-hom. Kindly refrain.

thinkcomp 17y ago
I disagree. First of all, I never said that anything was pointless. Secondly, Mark criticized my arguments because I had merely "scuffed on the subject of the IRS" in his words. I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the subject. Especially when I've offered up my name and background, asking for an anonymous critic's name and background does not constitute an ad hominem attack, and may in fact raise important points in the context of a debate.
- DenisM 17y ago
  I think I'm entitled to know what he's written on the subject. Try addressing the substance of the argument instead of the person that brought it forward.